Cephas (Weeden)

To Larry,
A question. What is it of Weeden's theory that hasn't stood up to
critical analysis? It would help for us to be clear here since I see a lot
of problems with _Mark:Traditions in Conflict_ but still find it to be a
helpful book for getting into Markan studies. For example, his thesis that
(to be over-schematic here) Mark 1-8 and 9-16 contain opposing traditions
which Mark contrasts, overthrowing the first tradition with the second, I have
real problems with. In fact, the primary goal of my own MA thesis at Miami U.
was to challenge this aspect of his theory. With almost any kind of a modern
literary critical approach, it doesn't hold up. My thesis showed that Mark
uses death and resurrection themes in the miracle stories (esp. 5:21-43 and
9:14-27) to prepare the reader to expect, or at least not be surprised by
Jesus' own resurrection (BTW, Biblical Greekers, a discussion of how the
middle/passive of egeirein can be used would probably be very instructive
here). But I must say that Weeden has tried to understand what is clearly a
major shift in the plot and direction of the Markan narrative. By the same
token, Weeden's Divine Man thesis is wanting in certain respects, but he is
trying to make sense of certain aspects of how Jesus is presented, especially
in the first half of the gospel. Specifically for me, his is a good stab at
understanding who Mark's Jesus is, since his baptism makes him out to be a
some kind of divine figure. But as to the question of the "Twelve" and
Jerusalem, while "vendetta" may be a harsh term, that Mark trashes Jesus'
family should be clear from the text. They try to grab him and take him home
because he is being accused of being possessed and is bringing shame on the
family. He disassociates himself from his biological family. He can't do
miracle works in his hometown because of the unbelief there. And if the Mary
of Mk6 is the Mary of Mk 15-16, then she is given one task by the youth, to
tell Peter and the disciples, and she fails even in this. So, I'd like to know
how an attack on Jesus' family is NOT found in Mark. And while the broad
direction of "the church" was to try to associate with important leaders in
the early movements, there's also a lot of Jockeying between different
communities who derive their status from certain apostles over against others.
An attack on the Jewish Christian leadership at such an early date is very
plausible.
Indeed, why would Acts be so concerned to make everyone good buddies and in
great agreement (compared to what we find in Paul's letters, for example)?
Steve Johnson
CGS